Literature DB >> 16673674

Equity-efficiency trade-offs in health technology assessment.

Alan H Williams1, Richard A Cookson.   

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) currently focuses on efficiency, rather than equity, on the basis that its primary objective is to maximize population health. Yet a strict cost-effectiveness approach sometimes conflicts with important equity concerns, such as the reduction of socioeconomic health inequalities. Managing such equity-efficiency trade-offs on the basis of intuition is unsatisfactory in a democracy, as it arouses suspicions of special pleading and favoritism toward vested interests. Over the next few decades, therefore, decision making may progress through up to three further stages of development observed historically in other areas of resource allocation. Stage two involves case law, limited to principles distilled from precedent. Stage three involves codification, seeking to generalize these principles without specifying their relative weights. Finally, at stage four, quantitative trade-offs are incorporated into a formula. At stage four, deliberation centers on adjustments to the formula, which would then be applied impartially, transparently, and fair-mindedly to all future decisions. Methods already exist for valuing equity-efficiency trade-offs, based on established methodological principles for valuing trade-offs between different dimensions of health. Early findings indicate that the general public thinks that social class inequalities are more inequitable than those by smoking status, with inequalities between the sexes somewhere in between. Relative weights can be calculated from these data, although the data are not yet comprehensive enough to do this credibly for current policy purposes. In the mean time, the equity-efficiency trade-offs suggested by current decisions can be estimated using standard cost-effectiveness analysis. This is because every departure from a strict cost-effectiveness approach has an opportunity cost. The size of that opportunity cost is a test of how much weight a particular equity concern is deemed to merit.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16673674     DOI: 10.1017/s026646230605077x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  11 in total

1.  QALYs: are they helpful to decision makers?

Authors:  Maurice McGregor; J Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies.

Authors:  Samuli I Saarni; Bjørn Hofmann; Kristian Lampe; Dagmar Lühmann; Marjukka Mäkelä; Marcial Velasco-Garrido; Ilona Autti-Rämö
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 9.408

3.  Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting: quantification of the inherent trade-off.

Authors:  Trygve Ottersen; Ottar Mæstad; Ole Frithjof Norheim
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2014-01-14

4.  Should Countries Set an Explicit Health Benefits Package? The Case of the English National Health Service.

Authors:  Peter C Smith; Kalipso Chalkidou
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns.

Authors:  Richard Cookson; Andrew J Mirelman; Susan Griffin; Miqdad Asaria; Bryony Dawkins; Ole Frithjof Norheim; Stéphane Verguet; Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale.

Authors:  Vivian A Welch; Elie A Akl; Gordon Guyatt; Kevin Pottie; Javier Eslava-Schmalbach; Mohammed T Ansari; Hans de Beer; Matthias Briel; Tony Dans; Inday Dans; Monica Hultcrantz; Janet Jull; Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Joerg Meerpohl; Rachael Morton; Annhild Mosdol; Jennifer Petkovic; Holger J Schünemann; Ravi N Sharaf; Jasvinder A Singh; Roger Stanev; Thomy Tonia; Mario Tristan; Sigurd Vitols; Joseph Watine; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  From Rapid Recommendation to Online Preference-Sensitive Decision Support: The Case of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Jack Dowie; Mette Kjer Kaltoft
Journal:  Med Sci (Basel)       Date:  2018-11-29

8.  Towards capability-adjusted life years in public health and social welfare: Results from a Swedish survey on ranking capabilities.

Authors:  Anna Månsdotter; Björn Ekman; Kaspar Walter Meili; Inna Feldman; Lars Hagberg; Anna-Karin Hurtig; Lars Lindholm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: stratified medicine research.

Authors:  Aroon D Hingorani; Daniëlle A van der Windt; Richard D Riley; Keith Abrams; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg; Sara Schroter; Willi Sauerbrei; Douglas G Altman; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-02-05

10.  A turnaround strategy: improving equity in order to achieve quality of care and financial sustainability in Italy.

Authors:  Gianluca Cafagna; Chiara Seghieri; Milena Vainieri; Sabina Nuti
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2018-11-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.